Our thanks to James for this. Outrageous. From Emmeline Pankhurst’s Wikipedia page (the emphases are ours):
In 1903, five years after her husband died, Pankhurst founded the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), an all-women suffrage advocacy organisation dedicated to “deeds, not words”. The group identified as independent from – and often in opposition to – political parties. It became known for physical confrontations: its members smashed windows and assaulted police officers. Pankhurst, her daughters, and other WSPU activists received repeated prison sentences, where they staged hunger strikes to secure better conditions. As Pankhurst’s eldest daughter Christabel took leadership of the WSPU, antagonism between the group and the government grew. Eventually the group adopted arson as a tactic, and more moderate organisations spoke out against the Pankhurst family.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Thatcher once rightly described feminism as ‘poison’. It’s Marxism in skirts and I’m sure that feminists would rather have anyone honoured, other than Thatcher.
She had a strictly meritocratic attitude to women’s advancement, rather than the identity politics with its quotas and ‘positive discrimination’ that we see in all parties today..
LikeLike
Of course Mrs.Thatcher lost out.
The left hate her for being the last, and one of the most effective, truly Conservative leaders of recent years.
And of course she it was who said “feminism is poison”…..
LikeLike
The British government has always done business with terrorists, regardless of sex.
LikeLike
Oh dear.
It appears that the British establishment would rather immortalise terrorist vermin such as Emmeline Pankhurst over and above the late Lady Thatcher, who was (arguably) the finest prime minister of the 20th Century after Churchill.
Outrageous attempt to deny and to distort history.
Disgraceful insult to those who suffered at the hands of suffragette terrorism.
Despicable cowardice from the Establishment.
LikeLike
I read a very interesting letter in the Daily Mail once, by a woman who thought that the Suffragettes were not to be credited with getting votes for women, rather it was the resilient women who worked hard in job positions left empty by men who were fighting in World War 1. I find myself sympathising with this view.
In History lessons a few years ago (year 9 national curriculum), we learnt about the Suffragettes and how they used acts of arson etc. to draw attention to themselves. Many people at the time ridiculed the idea of giving crazy women votes – women who went around smashing the windows of innocent shopkeepers. The ridicule and disdain the Suffragettes recieved should not be a surprise for them or anybody. I would say the Suffragettes did more to make the idea of giving women votes seem ludicrous than actually getting women to vote.
Pankhurst deserves none of the credit for women’s votes.
(It is all too often forgotten that the 1918 Representation of People Act gave many men the right to vote too. I would argue their efforts and sacrifice in WW1 contributed much to that.)
LikeLike
The suffragettes delayed female emancipation, the story is well related in Steve Moxon’s ‘The Woman Racket’ (2008). The government gave the vote to most men in 1918 because the country was almost bankrupt and it was necessary to increase the income tax base. The judgment was that this went hand-in-hand with giving men the vote, otherwise there could have been riots or worse.
LikeLike
Quite correct Mike and I think you will find that Mrs Pankhurst did not want votes for women. She wanted votes for “Ladies” whose husbands owned property. She did not want votes for working class women or men. The issue was as much about social class as gender. .My source for this is”The Suffragette Bombers” by Simon Webb.
LikeLike